The war of aggression by a permanent member of the Security Council, combined with the availability of its assets on the territory of other states, creates an opportunity to solve one of international law’s enigmas: the legality of third-party countermeasures in the general interest. Would confiscating Russia’s frozen Central Bank assets and making the proceeds available to repair the war damage in Ukraine be permissible as such a countermeasure? This paper argues that state immunity cannot be relied upon to prevent the freezing or confiscation of foreign central bank assets by direct executive action; that freezing foreign state assets is permissible as a third-party countermeasure to stop a serious case of aggression; and that confiscation would not qualify as a countermeasure but may be permissible as a ‘lawful measure’ to repair the damage. Recent changes in Canadian legislation support the existence of such a permissive rule. On the other hand, controversial measures by the United States to control the assets of the Afghan Central Bank demonstrate the need for safeguards against abuse.

安理会常任理事国发动的侵略战争，加上其在其他国家领土上的资产可用性，为解决国际法的一个谜团创造了机会：第三方反措施是否符合普遍利益的合法性。没收俄罗斯冻结的中央银行资产并将所得款项用于修复乌克兰的战争破坏是否可以作为这种反制措施？本文认为，不能依靠国家豁免权来阻止通过直接行政行为冻结或没收外国央行资产；允许冻结外国国家资产作为阻止严重侵略事件的第三方反措施；没收不符合反措施的条件，但可能被允许作为修复损害的“合法措施”。加拿大立法的最新变化支持这种许可规则的存在。另一方面，美国为控制阿富汗中央银行资产而采取的有争议的措施表明需要采取措施防止滥用。